From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266473AbUGPAjb (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:39:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266474AbUGPAjb (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:39:31 -0400 Received: from mtvcafw.SGI.COM ([192.48.171.6]:3324 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266473AbUGPAj3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:39:29 -0400 From: Jesse Barnes To: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: [PATCH] reduce inter-node balancing frequency Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:38:32 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: linux-kernel , Nick Piggin , John Hawkes References: <200407151829.20069.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <46970000.1089936880@flay> In-Reply-To: <46970000.1089936880@flay> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200407152038.32755.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, July 15, 2004 8:14 pm, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > Nick, we've had this patch floating around for awhile now and I'm > > wondering what you think. It's needed to boot systems with lots (e.g. > > 256) nodes, but could probably be done another way. Do you think we > > should create a scheduler domain for every 64 nodes or something? > > I think that'd make a lot of sense ... Yeah, though a smaller number of nodes would probably make more sense :) > > Any other NUMA folks have thoughts about these values? > > Yeah, change them in arch specific code, not in the global stuff ;-) What, you mean we're the only ones with 256 nodes? > But seeing as they're dependant (for you) on machine size, as well as > arch type, you probably need to do something cleverer in > arch_init_sched_domain Ok, I'll check that out. > But the big bugaboo is arch-specific vs general ... we need to break > opteron vs i386 vs ia64 out from each other ... they all need different > coefficients. > > If you were going to be really fancy, we could do it in common code off > the topology stuff ... but for now, I think it's easier to just set 'em > per arch ... We may have enough information to do that already... I'll look. Thanks, Jesse